Origin Myths in The Social Science Fromm

Origin Myths in the Social Sciences: Fromm, the Frankfurt School and the Emergence of
Critical Theory
Author(s): Neil McLaughlin
Source: The Canadian Journal of Sociology / Cahiers canadiens de sociologie, Vol. 24, No. 1
(Winter, 1999), pp. 109-139
Published by: Canadian Journal of Sociology
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3341480 .
Accessed: 17/11/2013 20:58
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Canadian Journal of Sociology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
Canadian Journal of Sociology / Cahiers canadiens de sociologie.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 130.113.111.210 on Sun, 17 Nov 2013 20:58:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Origin Myths in the Social Sciences: Fromm,

the FrankfurtSchool and the Emergenceof
CriticalTheory1
Neil McLaughlin
Abstract:The FrankfurtSchool providesrich materialfor the sociology of knowledge since it is

an example of how a once marginalschool of thoughtgained widespreadinfluence and crossed
the boundariesbetween disciplines, social movements, psychoanalysis, Marxism and national
traditions.Originally a Marxistthink-tankfunded by the wealthy son of a Germanmillionaire,
the FrankfurtSchool helped create an innovativebrandof philosophicallyorientedradicalsocial
science known as critical theory. Criticaltheory has had an enormous influence on post-1960s
intellectuallife, and today is most commonlyassociatedwith TheodorAdorno,Max Horkheimer,
HerbertMarcuse,WalterBenjaminandJiirgenHabermas.ErichFromm'scentralrole in the early
development of the FrankfurtSchool has largely been ignored in the literature.
This article is a sociologically informedhistory of the FrankfurtSchool with a focus on the
bitter and contentious break between Erich Fromm and its other members in the late 1930s,
particularlyAdorno,Horkheimerand in the 1950s with Marcuse.The breakbetween Frommand
the FrankfurtSchool is explained with reference to both ideational (different interpretationsof
Freudiantheory and the natureof left ideology) as well as institutionalfactors(competitionover
resourceswithin the FrankfurtSchool and the professionalizationof psychoanalysis).Unpacking
1. Thanks to Robert Alford, Scott Davies, Stephen Steinberg, John Rodden, Alan Wolfe,
Catherine Silver, Jennifer Platt, Cynthia Fuchs Epstein, Rolf Meyersohn, Sonia Gojman
Millan, SalvadorMillan, DeborahCook, PetraRethmann,CarrieAshton, Anita Hanbali,and
Mauricio Cortinafor feedback on earlier drafts of this paper. A version was presentedat a
sociology of knowledge session of the annual meetings of the American Sociological
Association in Toronto, August 1997 organized by Alan Wolfe where Jeff Weintrauband
MarkShields served as insightfuldiscussants.An Arts ResearchBoardgrantfrom McMaster
Universitymade possible a researchtripto Germanythatallowed me to respondto the useful
review and editorial comments from The Canadian Journal of Sociology. Rainer Funk's
hospitality at the Erich Fromm Archives in Tiibingen Germany was an enormous help in
helping me reconstructthe early history of critical theory.
CanadianJournalof Sociology/Cahierscanadicnsdc sociologic 24(1) 1999

109
110 CanadianJournalof Sociology

the history of how Fromm was once seen as a major figure in the FrankfurtSchool and then
gradually written out of the history of critical theory is a case study in the sociology of
knowledge that looks at how origin myths are constructedwithin schools of thought and
intellectualmovements.
Resume:L'Ecole de Francfortnous donne un materielriche d'informationpourla sociologie de
la connaissancepuisquec'est un exemple d'une ecole de pensee qui est passee de la marinalitee
a une qui a gagnee une influancerepanduset passee au traversdes limites entresles disciplines,
mouvementssociaux, psychanalyse,Marxismeet traditionsnationales.Prenantnaissancecomme
une "boite a pensee" et financee par le fils opulent d'un millionaire Allemand, L'ecole de
Francfortaida a creer une varieteinnovatriced'une science sociale qui etait philosophiquement
radicale en orientation,connue sous le nom de theorie critique. La theorie critique a eu une
influance 6norme sur la vie intellectuelle des annees soixantes et de l'epoque qui suivit, et
aujourd'huiest associee a des noms comme TheodorAdorno,Max Horkeimer,HerbertMarcuse,
Walter Benjamin et Jurgen Habermas. Le role central d'Erich Fromm dans les premiers
developmentsde l'ecole de Francforta ete ignore dans la litterature.
Cet articleest une historie,informeepar la sociologie, de l'ecole de Francfortavec un accent
sur la ruptureamere et contentieuseentre Erich Frommet les authremembresvers la fin des
anneestrentes,et en particulier,Adorno,Horkheimer,et dansles anneescinquentes,Marcuse.La
ruptureentre Fromm et l'ecole de Francfortest expliquee en referenceaux facteursidealistes
(Interpretationsdifferentesde la theorie freudienneet de la naturede l'ideologie de la guache)
ainsi qu'aux facteursinstitutionels(competitionpourles ressourcesde l'6cole et la professionalisation de la psychanalyse).Le devoilementde l'histoirede la facon h laqeulleFrommest passe
commeetantpercuscomme un hommede taille dansl'ecole de Francforth gradeullementdevenir
litteralementsoustraitde l'histoirede la theoriecritiqueest un cas d'etudede la sociologie de la
connaissancequi 6tudie commentles myths des origines sont construitsa l'interieurdes ecoles
de pensees et des mouvementsintellectuels.
The FrankfurtSchool providesrich materialfor the sociology of knowledge

as an example of how a marginal school of thought gained widespread
influence and crossed the boundariesbetweendisciplines,social movements,
psychoanalysis,Marxismand nationaltraditions.The FrankfurtSchool is an
enormously influential school of thought that helped bring continental
philosophyand Germanintellectualtraditionsacrossthe Atlanticto America.2
Associated with FrankfurtUniversityin the 1920s and early 1930s and again
in the 1950s through the 1960s (with a Nazi era exile in Geneva and at
ColumbiaUniversityand a post-warstay in California),the FrankfurtSchool
thinkers produced an innovative blend of radical philosophy and social
science. Criticaltheoryhelped shape scholarshipandtheorizingin contemporarysociology, literary,film, andculturalstudies,as well as havinga briefbut
2. Criticaltheoryhas become a generictermthatappliesto a wide rangeof influentialscholarly

work in both the humanitiesand the social sciences but that was not always the case. The
term, of course, was originally coined to describethe traditionrepresentedby the German
FrankfurtInstitutefor Social Research,what we now know as the FrankfurtSchool (Jay,
1973).

OriginMythsin the SocialSciences 111

significant influence on the intellectualsassociated with the social movement
of the New Left (Jay, 1973; Bronner, 1994; Wiggershaus, 1994; Kellner,
1989; Calhoun, 1995). Yet the history of the FrankfurtSchool has largely
been written by partisans, and we have little empirical research on the
sociological reception of critical theory.
This article attemptsto fill this gap in the literaturewith a sociologically
informedhistoryof the bitterand contentiousbreakbetweenErichFrommand
the othermembersof the school in the late 1930s. The breakbetween Fromm
and the FrankfurtSchool is explained with reference to both ideational (different interpretationsof Freudiantheory and the natureof left ideology) as
well as institutionalfactors (competitionover resources within the Frankfurt
School and the professionalizationof psychoanalysis).Unpackingthe history
of how Fromm was once seen as a major figure in the FrankfurtSchool and
then graduallywrittenout of this history is a case study in the sociology of
knowledge that looks at how origin myths are constructedwithin schools of
thought and intellectual movements (Platt, 1996; Platt, 1983; Platt, 1985;
Rodden, 1989; Samelson, 1974). For JenniferPlatt, origin myths in the social
sciences are not about accurate historical reconstruction,but are part of a
process whereby "contemporarypreferences"are legitimated by "providing
them with an honourablepast"(Platt, 1996: 267-268). We will illustrateand
illuminate this larger theoreticalpoint with the example of Fromm and the
FrankfurtSchool.
Institute For Social Research
The FrankfurtSchool was a tightnetworkof independentradicalphilosophers,
economists and sociologists associated with the GermanInstitutefor Social
Research- essentially a Marxistthink tank bankrolledby the radical son of
a Germanmillionaire grain merchant(Wiggershaus, 1994; Jay, 1973). The
institute was founded in the early 1920s with the purpose of promoting the
developmentof radicalintellectualideas not controlledby traditionalMarxist
and social democraticparties or academic disciplines (Jay, 1973).
Historical researchclearly documents that Fromm was an importantand
early member of the FrankfurtSchool but the origin myth constructed by
contemporarypartisans of critical theory has replaced Fromm by Herbert
Marcuse and Theodor Adorno and, most incredibly, Walter Benjamin
(Alexander, 1987; Agger, 1992; Alford, 1988; Buck-Morss, 1977; Therborn,
1970; Whitebook, 1995).3 Both Marcuse and Adorno joined the Frankfurt
3. Careful scholars such as Buck-Morssdo not deny that Benjaminwas relatively marginalto
the Institute,but instead are engaged in a project of re-discoveringBenjaminand inserting

School well afterFromm(in Adorno'scase, nearlya decadeafterFromm)and

Benjaminneverdid formallyjoin as a full-timefacultymemberand was never
partof Horkheimer'sinnercircle, but these elementaryhistoricalfacts are not
highlighted in the literature(but see Wiggershaus,1994; Bronner, 1994).4
Frommbroughtpsychoanalysisinto the institute,helpingcreatethe distinctive
mixtureof Marx and Freudthatgave HerbertMarcuseand FrankfurtSchool
notoriety as part of New Left era academic radicalism (Kellner, 1989;
Burston, 1991; Richert, 1986; Bronner, 1994; Wiggershaus, 1994). Even
thoughFrommhad an enormousinfluence on the radicaland Marxistsocial
science that emerged in the wake of the social movementsof the 1960s, he
largely dropped out of the canon of critical sociology.5 By the 1970s, Fromm
was writtenout of the history of the FrankfurtSchool just as it was carving

a small place for itself on the marginsof the academy(Funk, 1982).6Most of
the scholarshipaboutthe FrankfurtSchool has, until very recently,underestimated Fromm's importanceto the early developmentof critical theory (but
see Bronner,1994; Wiggershaus,1994; Wolin, 1992; Richert,1986; Kellner,
him into the criticaltheory tradition.Yet Buck-Morssdoes effectively ignore Fromm'srole
in the Instituteand her work has contributedto a situationwhere youngerscholarswithout
Buck-Morss's historical perspective tend to see Benjamin as more central to the early
FrankfurtSchool than he was and Frommas more marginalthan was the case.
4. Other core membersof the early FrankfurtSchool were Carl Grinberg (who Horkheimer
replaced as directorin 1930), Leo Lowenthal,FriedrichPollack, Otto Kirchheimer,Franz
Neumann,TheodorAdoro, HerbertMarcuse,KarlWittfogeland HenrykGrossman.
5. For example Paul Connerton's 1972 edited collection Critical Sociology is built around
selections of readingsfrom the FrankfurtSchool traditionyet has only one single mentionof
Fromm.On the cover the names of Adorno,Habermas,Benjamin,Horkheimer,Marcuseand
Neumannare writtenin largeblue lettersandnot a single workby Frommis listed in a rather
extensive bibliography(Connerton,1972).
6. As RainerFunk puts it, "The importantrole Frommplayed as a memberof the Frankfurt
Institutefor Social Researchseems to have been deliberatelyignoredafter he left it toward
the end of the thirties, especially by Max Horkheimer"(Funk, 1982: 296 footnote). Funk
continues, "Horkheimerwas so reluctantto acknowledgeFromm's membershipthat when
OskarHerscheasked him in 1969 who the membersof the institutehad been around 1930
(M. Horkheimer,VerwalteteWelt: 11), he could answer:'Therewere a numberof people. I
should begin by mentioningFriedrichPollock, Franz Borkenau,Henryk Grossman,Karl
August Wittfogel, Leo Lowenthal,Karl Korsch,GerhardMeyer, KurtMandelbaum,all of
whom except Lowenthalhad been hired by Griinberg.All of them publishedbooks in the
Instituteseries. There were also some psychoanalystswho belonged to the Institutefor we
realizedthatsociology andpsychoanalysiswould have to worktogether.But theirassociation
was less close. Karl Landauer,Heinrich Meng and Erich Fromm and some others were
membersof this group.They held seminarson psychoanalysis,thoughnot at the University
but at the Institute.'" Funk points out that "Itis not truethatFromm'sassociationwas "less
close," nor was he just one among a numberof others.In 1930, Horkheimerhad invitedhim,
as an expert on psychoanalysis,to become one of the core membersof the instituteand to
become an associate for life" (Funk, 1982: 297, footnote).


1989).7Even MartinJay's enormouslyinfluentialandotherwiseexcellent book
The Dialectical Imagination(1973) repeats some of the origin myths about
critical theory promotedby Horkheimerand Adorno. Adorno, Horkheimer,
Marcuse and Benjamin became the central figures within a revised history,
and Adorno's studentJurgenHabermasbecamethe heir to the tradition(Held,
1980; Jay, 1984; Alford, 1988; Kellner, 1984; Robinson, 1969; Tar, 1985;
Buck-Morss, 1984; van den Berg, 1980). How did this remarkablere-writing
of the history of a school of thoughtcome to pass?
Schools of Thought: A Comparative Perspective
It is useful to think aboutschools of thoughtfrom a comparativeperspective.
Despite the disruptionsof World War Two and various internal fights, the
FrankfurtSchool retaineda far more cohesive structurethan most schools of
thought in psychoanalysisor sociology, for example. This is largely because
of the economic and organizationalfactors that distinguish the Frankfurt
School fromprofessionaltherapyandacademicsocial science. Freudiansmake
their living from therapy and fees for analyst trainingand they established
their own institutesthat are often runby charismaticleaders (or even families
as in the case of the Menningers)(Roazen,1974; Friedman, 1990; Kurzweil
1985). Yet unlike the FrankfurtSchool, Freudiansinstitutes have relatively
formal structuresand are generally not run for life by one individual.8And
while sociological schools of thoughtand theoreticaltraditionsare sometimes
organizedaroundparticularindividualssuch as Parsonsor Garfinkel(although
sociological schools of thoughtare rarelynamedafterpeople as is the case in
psychoanalysis), most prestigious sociologists are employed in departments
housed at decentralizeduniversitiesor colleges that control their own hiring.
Unlike psychoanalyticinstitutesand sociology departments,the resources
and journal of critical theory were controlledsinglehandedly,after 1930, by
Max Horkheimeras he managedand shapedthe FrankfurtSchool.9The major
7. Trent Schroyer's The Critique of Domination: The Origins and Development of Critical
Theory(1973) has only one shortmentionof Fromm,as partof a list of criticaltheoristswho
have documented reification, including Horkheimer, Benjamin, Adorno and Neumann
(Schroyer, 1973: 203). Zoltan Tar's The FrankfurtSchool: The Critical Theories of Max
Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno (1985) mentions Fromm four times, but seriously
downplays Fromm's centralityto early critical theory (Tar, 1985: 17, 103, 112, 127). These
are just two examples of a widespreadtendency in the literature.
8. Psychoanalytic institutes are, of course, relatively cohesive compared to sociology
departments.While the historyof psychoanalysishas been distortedby the sect-like behavoir
of Freudian partisans, the influence that psychoanalysis has had within psychiatry
departments,academicpsychology andthe broaderintellectualculturehas helped createmore

figures in the FrankfurtSchool thuswere farmoredependenton the economic

resources of one institutionthan is the case for either psychoanalystsor
sociologists. Horkheimerused his controlover the FrankfurtSchool resources
to ensure that he and a limited numberof scholarscould avoid the pressures
of attaining a mainstreamacademicjob. Horkheimerguardedthis money
carefully,always attemptingto supporta small core of thinkersloyal to him.
He used the money as a "seed"to try to keep a peripheralgroup associated
with the institute but supportedby outside teaching, foundationgrants or
governmentemployment.Rolf Wiggershaus'simportanthistoryof the school,
for example, makes it clear that Horkheimerput pressure on Marcuse
(Wiggershaus calls it a "strategy of financial starvation,"Wiggershaus,
1994:299)to accepta job with the Bureauof Intelligenceof the UnitedStates
government's Office of War Informationand then later at the Office of
Strategic Services (O.S.S.) and State Department,freeing up funds for the
other members of the Institute(Wiggershaus,1994: 299-301). These economic and organizationalrealitiesare centralfor understandingthe historyof
the FrankfurtSchool, even thoughthey are often ignored,an irony, of course,
since most criticaltheoristsprofess loyalty to materialistanalysis.
Horkheimer Builds a School
Horkheimerhad initially been interestedin mergingMarxistpolitics with the
psychologicalinsightsof the Freudiantradition.Yet Horkheimer'sknowledge
of psychoanalysiswas minimal- he was once analysedbriefly in orderto
help get over an inhibitionabout speakingin public without readinga prepared text (Wiggershaus, 1994)."' Fromm, in contrast, was an expert in
psychoanalytictheory and therapyand taughtpsychoanalysisin a program
associated with the Institutethat Horkheimerhad helped set up at Frankfurt
diversity in Freudian historiographythan is the case within critical theory. The major
historiansof the FrankfurtSchool have tendedto be directlyconnectedto critical theorists
or scholars who knew them personally.There is no revisionist historianof the Frankfurt
School with the statureand academiccredentialsof Paul Roazen, for example, a political
scientistwho has played an importantrole in upholdingscholarlystandardsin the writingof
the history of psychoanalysisfrom outsidethe camp of Freudianorthodoxy.
9. As MartinJay points out, when the institutewas foundedin 1923 it was "to have a single
directorwith 'dictatorial'control"(Jay, 1973: 11). Max Horkheimertook overthe directorship
from Carl Griinbergin 1930. As Jay points out, "in subsequentyearsthe dominanceof Max
Horkheimerin the affairs of the Institutewas unquestioned.Although in large measure
attributableto the force of his personalityand the range of his intellect, his power was also
rooted in the structureof the Instituteas it was originallyconceived"(Jay, 1973: 11).
10. GerhardKnappsuggests, however,thatHorkheimercame up with the problemof readinghis
speeches simply to be able to providesome rationalefor briefly enteringpsychoanalysisin
orderto betterunderstandit (Knapp, 1989).


University. Fromm was made the tenureddirectorof the Institutefor Social
Research's Social Psychology Section in 1930 (Wiggershaus,1994: 57-58).
Fromm's major project with the Institutehad begun a year earlier with a
study on the social psychology of Germanworkers, a piece of researchthat
played a major role in Fromm's bitter break with his colleagues (Bonss,
1984). In 1929 Frommbegan researchon GermanWorkers1929 - A Survey,
Its Methods and Results. The theory of the authoritariancharacter that
Theodor Adomo would make famous with The AuthoritarianPersonality
(1950) came directly out of this empirical research (Adorno et al, 1950).
Fromm's contributionto the genesis of the authoritarianpersonalityresearch
was widely known in the 1950s and 1960s (Christie and Jahoda, 1954)
althoughAdorno and Horkheimerwould laterobfuscateFromm'spivotal role
(Funk, 1982; Burston, 1991).
This obfuscationwas possible because Fromm'swork on the authoritarian
characterwas not published in English in its entirety until four years after
Fromm's death underthe title The WorkingClass in WeimarGermanydue to
the efforts of a German sociologist (Bonss, 1984)." Fromm in the 1930s,
along with the rest of the early FrankfurtSchool, was interestedin understanding the sources of the mass appeal of the Nazi party as well as why the
Germanworking class did not resist Hitler as Marxisttheory predicted.This
project proceeded slowly partlybecause of the forced migrationof the institute from Germanyin 1933. A first reportof the study appearedin German
in the context of Horkheimer'sedited collection Studien fiber Autoritit und
Familie (1936) where it was suggested that the larger work would soon be
published (Bonss, 1984).
Conflict over the Study
While many of ErichFromm'slaterworks were best-sellersand were greeted
with critical acclaim, he had to fight hostility and indifferenceto this project
11. Anotherfactoris thatFrommdecidedto reformulatehis draftmanuscripttentativelytitled The

AuthoritarianCharacteror The Psychologyof Fascism in a way that de-emphasizedthe issue
of the authoritariancharacterand played up "theproblemof freedom and anxiety or the fear
of freedom or the escape from freedom (Frommhad hit on this new theme in the course of
a letter to Columbia sociologist Robert Lynd dated March 1, 1939, available in the Erich
Fromm Archives, Tiibingen, Germany).Fromm thoughtthat the issue of freedom might be
more marketableand was closer to his heart.His decision to framehis book aroundthe issue
of an "escapefrom freedom"ironicallyhelped makehis reputationas a majorsocial critic but
also left Adorno an opening to lay claim to the intellectualtrademarkof the "authoritarian
personality." In addition, Fromm felt that Adorno and his collaborators did not fully
understandpsychoanalytictheory and the psychology of authoritarianism,so Fromm was
ambivalentabout being associated with the Berkeley study.

from the beginning.Frommleft the Institutein 1939 and the revised plan for
a publicationof the Weimar workersproject was dropped.The study disappeared,as WolfgangBonss puts it, "intoFromm'sdesk drawer"and "was
later also partlydeleted from the annalsof the Institute"(Bonss, 1984: 2).
There is dispute among scholars as to why this study was so unpopular
among the inner circle of the FrankfurtSchool. Fromm himself stressed
Horkheimer'sconcernthatcontroversialMarxismof the studywould hurtthe
institutein anti-communistAmerica(Bonss, 1984).12MartinJay repeatedthe
institute's official justificationthat the researchdesign was flawed and that
manyquestionnaireshad been lost (somethingFrommdeniedto the end of his
life) (Jay, 1973).13 HerbertMarcusewas concernedthat the study might be
used to show that Germanworkerswere really fascists at heart (Jay, 1973;
Bonss, 1984).14While there is debate among scholars whetherthe Fromm
studyis primarilyof historicalimportanceor has contemporarytheoreticaland
methodologicalrelevance, there is no doubt that it was central to the early
work of the FrankfurtSchool.'5Horkheimer'srefusal to publish the Fromm
12. In a letter to Tom Bottomoredated March26th, 1974 (ErichFromm Archives, Tibingen,

Germany),Frommwrites, "Horkheimer,partlymotivatedby an excessive jealously towards
anyonewho was productiveand partlyby an even more excessive fear of sufferingfrom the
stigma of being a Leftist, in fact in the Americanperiod encouragedwork was (sic) was
conventionaland would destroyany suspicionof radicalism.An example,for instance,is that
a very interestingstudy on the authoritariancharacterof Germanworkersand employees,
based on a little less than 600 questionaries,made in Germanybefore Hitler,the analysisof
which was finished in Americain 1935, was not permittedto be published,by Horkheimer,
because it was consideredto be too dangerous."
13. Fromm had an extensive correspondencewith MartinJay before the publicationof The
Dialectical Imaginationand in fact readthe manuscriptin draftform and sent Jay a lengthy
letterdisagreeingwith variousfactualandinterpretiveaspectsof the book.Frommwrote,"As
to the publicationof the study, I want to say that my departurefrom the Institutewas not a
majorreason for its non-publication.On the contrary,the unwillingnessof Horkheimerto
publishit was one of the manyconflictswhich led to my departure.Pollack'ssuggestionthat
it was not publishedbecausetoo manyof the questionarieswhere(sic) lost in the flight from
Germanymust be due to a fault in his memory.To the best of my knowledgeno questionaries were ever lost ..." Frommfelt that they recieved a reasonableamountof questionaires
back given the circumstancesin Germanyat the time (Frommto Jay, dated May 14, 1971,
in Kessler and Funk, 1991: 249-256).
14. A key element of Fromm'sargumentwas that some workerswho voted for left partieshad
authoritarian
characters,a positionthatEdwardShils would laterarticulate(withoutreference
to Fromm)as a conservativecritiqueof left-wing authoritarianism
(Shils, 1954). Fromm,in
contrast,was motivatedby a left-wing concern with understandingthe factors that might
attractworkersto fascism. Yet for those who arguedthattherewere no enemies on the left,
not workersand left parties
the lower middle and elites were the source of authoritarianism
- Frommhad challengedan importantpartof left-wing ideology.
15. Richard Hamilton, for example, argues that the Fromm study is "marredthroughoutby
Fromm'spersistentreadingof his interpretationinto his results,"is "flagrantlyahistorical"

Origin Myths in the Social Sciences 117
study underthe auspices of the Institutewas a majorfactorin the rift between

Fromm and the FrankfurtSchool.
In addition to these ideological and intellectual conflicts, the strong
personal animosities between Fromm and Theodor Adorno clearly played a
majorrole in the internalconflict withinthe Institute.Wiggershauspoints out,
for example, that Adoro was fond of referringto Fromm as a "professional
Jew" (Wiggershaus, 1994: 266). Nor was Fromm particularlyenamouredof
Adomo. In a letter to the Marxist philosopher Raya Dunayekaya, Fromm
wrote, "as to Adorno, he was, from personal knowledge and from reading
some of his writings, a puffed up phrase-makerwith no conviction and
nothing to say."16Martin Jay stresses cultural style as a key difference
between Horkheimer, Adorno and Fromm.17An analysis of the social
organizationof the Institutefor Social Research, however, suggests that the
breakbetween Frommand the FrankfurtSchool involved more thanmethods,
political ideology, and personalityconflicts.
Adorno Replaces Fromm
The fundamentalsource of Fromm's departurefrom the FrankfurtSchool for
Social Researchwas conflict betweenAdornoand Frommover both resources
and Freudiantheory. Frommhad entered the tenuredcore of the Institutein
1930 while Adorno, in contrast,was not centralto the instituteuntil the late
1930s. While in Germanyand abroadin Englandduringthe early Nazi rule,
Adoro had been supportedby his well-off parents.Horkheimerhad initially
and flawed by unrepresentativesampling procedures (Hamilton, 1986:82-83). Hamilton

understandsthat the Weimarstudy is an importantpartof the history of both social science
and the FrankfurtSchool, but essentiallyviews the researchresultsand methodsas worse than
useless. Jose Brunner, on the other hand, argues that the Fromm study is of historical
importanceand contemporaryrelevanceto social science. Accordingto Brunner,the Weimar
study is "the first opinion survey which applied modem psychological methods to the
investigationof electoralandpolitical behaviour(Brunner,1994: 631). Brunnerfurtherargues
that "despitequestions of authorship,purpose,ideological biases, and technical problems,it
warrantsattentionnot only as a historicaldocument;it also constitutesa provocativeexample
of empiricalresearchwhich can still providefood for thoughtfor today's studentsof political
psychology (Brunner,1994: 631). For an attemptto build on Fromm'searlierresearchusing
modem sociological methods, see (Smith, 1997).
16. Dated October2nd, 1976 (Erich Fromm Archives, Tiibingen,Germany).
17. Jay suggests that "Fromm'ssensibility was less ironic than that of the other membersof the
inner circle, his approach to life less colored by the aesthetic nuances shared by both
Horkheimerand Adoro. Adorno's full entry into Institut affairs at about the same time
Frommwas leaving signified a crucialshift in the tone of the FrankfurtSchool's work"(Jay,
1973: 101). Jay does not highlight the resource connection between Adoro's entry and
Fromm's departure.

118 Canadian
Journalof Sociology
wanted to tie Adorno to the Institutewithoutcommittingto him financially
(Wiggershaus,1994). The Institutehad substantialbut finite resources and
Horkheimer'sprioritywas maintaininghis own materialsecurityas well as
controlover the contentof the workproduced.Horkheimersaw Frommas an
intellectualequal and collaboratorin the early 1930s, but graduallyAdorno
replaced him as a core member of the FrankfurtSchool and Horkheimer's
trustedally.18This competitionand struggleplayeditself out most dramatically over the use of psychoanalysiswithin criticaltheory.
Freud and the Frankfurt School
When Frommfirst developedhis psychologicalthoughtwithin the Frankfurt
School, he subscribedto an orthodoxFreudianlibido theorythatemphasized
the centralityof instincts.By the middle of the 1930s, however,Frommhad
brokenfrom orthodoxyto stress the importanceof cultureand interpersonal
relations (Burston, 1991) and an existential analysis of human psychic
isolation that gave rise to what he would later call a "fear of freedom"
(McLaughlin,1996b).
Adorno arguedthat Fromm's emerging break with Freud was a serious
threatto the political and intellectual"line"of the FrankfurtSchool. Adorno
had been suspicious of the collaborationbetween Horkheimerand Fromm
while the Institutewas based in Frankfurt.The beginningof open conflict,
however, can be dated to Fromm'sessay "TheSocial Determinationof Psychoanalytic Therapy,"an early version of his later criticisms of orthodox
Freudiantheoryand therapypublishedin the criticaltheory'sjournalin 1935
(Wiggershaus,1994).'9In March1936Adornowroteto Horkheimerdefending
FreudagainstFromm'srevisionism.For Adorno,Fromm'sarticle:
is sentimentaland wrongto begin with, being a mixtureof social democracyand anarchism,and
above all shows a severe lack of the concept of dialectics. He takes the easy way out with the
conceptof authority,withoutwhich, afterall, neitherLenin's avant-gardenor dictatorshipcan be
conceived of. I would stronglyadvise him to read Lenin. And what do the anti-popesopposed
to Freudsay? No, preciselywhen Freudis criticizedfrom the left, as he is by us, things like the
silly argumentabouta "lackof kindness"cannotbe permitted.This is exactly the trick used by
18. AlthoughFrommwas tenuredanddeeply involvedin the earlyworkof the FrankfurtSchool,

he did not spend that much time aroundthe Institute(partlybecause of illness but also
because of the time constraintsof his psychoanalyticwork). And Frommwas not a member
of Horkheimer'spersonalinnercircle. In only thatnarrowsense is the conventionalwisdom
correctaboutthe core of the early FrankfurtSchool.
19. This was publishedas "Die gesellschaftlicheBedeutungder psychoanalytischenTherapie."
Zeitschriftfiir Sozialforschung,4:3 (1935): 365-97.


bourgeois individualistsagainst Marx. I must tell you that I see a real threatin this article to the
line which the journal takes ... (cited in Wiggershaus,1994: 266).20
For Adorno,Fromm's revision of Freudiantheoryinevitablyled away from

a truly radicalcritiqueof moder society - substitutingsoft-heartedtherapy
for rigorous analysis. By the late 1930s Horkheimerhad accepted Adorno's
critique of Fromm's psychoanalytictheory.21Both Adorno and Horkheimer
insistedthat"biologicalmaterialism"was "thetheoreticalcore of psychoanalysis which was to be maintainedagainstthe revisionists"(Wiggershaus,1994:
271). This issue had little to do with therapysince no one in the Frankfurt
School otherthan Frommwas an expertin the clinical and empiricalbasis of
Freudiantheory.22
This intellectual conflict happenedat the same time as a major conflict
over resources, something almost uniformly ignored in the secondary
literature.23
In the spring of 1939 Frommwas essentially dismissed from his
tenured position at the Institute by Friedrich Pollack because of financial
reasons. Fromm was asked to go without his salary since he had an income
20. The original letter from Adorno in London to Horkheimerin New York can be found in
Germanin (Horkheimer,1995a: 496-501).
21. This is how Frommframes the issue in his letter to MartinJay writtenin 1971," In the first
years of the Institute,while it was in Frankfurtand Geneva, Horkheimerhas no objection to
my critiqueof Freud, which began very slowly before I left the Institute.It was only in the
years after the Institutehad been for some time in New York, and maybe since I began to
write Escape from Freedom, that Horkheimerchanged his opinion, became a defender of
orthodoxFreudianism,and consideredFreud's attitudeas a true revolutionarybecause of his
materialisticattitudetowardssex. A strangething for Horkheimerto do incidentally,because
it is prettyobvious thatFreud'sattitudetowardsex correspondedto the bourgeoismaterialism
of the 19th centurywhich was so sharplycriticized by Marx. I rememberthat Horkheimer
was also on very friendly terms with Homey in the first years of his stay in New York, and
did not then defend orthodoxFreudianism.It was only later that he made this change and it
is too personala problemto speculate why he did so. I assume partlythis had to do with the
influence of Adomo, whom from the very beginning of his appearancein New York I
criticizedvery sharply.Consideringthe whole situationof the Instituteit is not surprisingthat
when Horkheimermadethis change,Lowenthaland Pollackdid the same. Adornowas in this
respect probablynot influencedby Horkheimer,but ratherthe other way around"(Frommto
Jay, Kessler and Funk, 1991: 254).
22. One need not be in therapyto engage in debates aboutpsychoanalytictheory, of course, but
it is interestingthatAdomo, Marcuseand Pollock had not been in any kind of psychoanalysis
nor did they have formal trainingwhile Lowenthal, as well as Fromm and Horkheimerhad
been analysed.
23. Jay and especially Wiggershaus provide us with the basic informationto understandthe
resource aspect of this conflict, but Jay does not systematicallyconnect the differences over
ideas to struggles over money and Wiggershaus describes but does not theorize resource
issues. The issue of tenure and money in the history of the FrankfurtSchool almost totally
disappearsfrom accounts writtenby contemporaryscholars who use critical theory.

120 Canadian
Journalof Sociology
from therapy,an arrangementhe declined (Jay, 1973; Bonss, 1984). Horkheimer and Frommengaged in discussions at the end of 1939, but as Wiggershausputs it "the breachhad alreadytaken place, and only the arrangements for the separationremainedto be dealt with" (Wiggershaus, 1994:
271).24Frommreceived $20,000 for giving up his tenure(a lot of money at
the time in depressionera America)and he turnedhis energiesto therapyand
writingwhat would become Escapefrom Freedom(1941).
Adornoenteredthe core of the Institutein the late 1930s, and Horkheimer
and especially Adorno became bitter enemies of Fromm and attemptedto
exclude him as best they could from the history of the Institute.Fromm's
fame as the authorof Escape from Freedommade the split permanentand
even more bitter(McLaughlin,1996b).25HorkheimerandAdomo becamethe
public face of the Institutefor Social Researchin America.Both Horkheimer
and Adorno now had an interestin downplayingFromm'srole in the early
authoritarianpersonalityresearch.Horkheimerand Adoro's neglect in fully
creditingFrommfor his part in developing the F-scale could be seen somewhat generouslyas whatthe literarycritic HaroldBloom once called the "anxiety of influence."
Adoro continuedto be harshlycriticalof Fromm'srevisionof Freud,and
he gave a paper entitled "Social Science and Sociological Tendencies in
Psychoanalysis"in Los Angeles in April of 1946 (Jay, 1973). In additionto
the early critiqueof Fromm'sdissentfromlibido theory,Adornolaterargued
that the neo-Freudian(withoutmentioningFromm'sname now, except with
referenceto his earlyorthodoxwritings)attemptto combinepsychologicaland
sociological levels of analysiswas misguided(Adorno,1967; Adorno, 1968).
For Adorno,the revisionists"give an oversimplifiedaccountof the interaction
of the mutuallyalienatedinstitutionsid and ego ... posit a directconnection
between the institutionalsphere and social experience"(Adorno, 1968: 79)
and are guilty of "superficialhistoricism"(Adomo, 1968: 89).
24. For correspondencebetween Fromm and Horkheimeras the rift was happening, see
(Horkheimer,1995b: 400-401; 401-404; 408-410; 689; 690).
25. Frommmade only one citationto Horkheimerin Escapefrom Freedom,and did not mention
Adomo or Fromm's relationshipto the Institutealthoughhe did cite his own essay in the
Horkheimercollectionon authorityandthe family.Adornoresentedthis althoughHorkheimer
was more philosophical about it. In a letter to Leo Lowenethaldated October 31, 1942
Horkheimerwrites, "Frommand Homey get back to a commonsensepsychology, and even
psychologizecultureandsociety. (If you speakof thatplease don't let yourselfbe drawninto
any vituperationsagainstour friend.They will be reportedto him and I have no intentionto
reactivatethe war at this moment.He shouldhave the impressionthatwe are at least as loyal
as he is. Up to now he does not seem to have violatedour silent agreement,on the contrary,
I know that he mentionedour names and writings- in public at least - with due respect)"
(Horkheimer1995c:367).


Adorno's critique of Fromm eventually became the conventionalwisdom
among the small number of followers of the FrankfurtSchool perspective.
When the social protest movements of the 1960s created a large marketfor
criticaltheoryamongradicalstudentsand intellectuals,this critiqueof Fromm
was popularizedby HerbertMarcuse and then accepted by a generation of
New Left scholars (Marcuse, 1955b; Marcuse, 1956; Jacoby, 1975; Jacoby,
1983; Kellner, 1984; Robinson, 1969; Lasch, 1977; Lasch 1979). Centralto
this story was an influentialFromm/Marcusedebatepublishedin three issues
of Dissent magazine from fall 1955 to spring 1956 (Marcuse's contribution
was reprinted as an epilogue to the 1955a book Eros and Civilization).
Marcuse largely createdtoday's view of Frommas a naive utopianpreacher,
essentially the Norman Vincent Peale of the left (Richert, 1986). Marcuse's
initial attack on Fromm was the major theme of a larger essay on "neoFreudian"critiquesof orthodoxFreudiantheory (Marcuse, 1955b). Marcuse,
drawing implicitly on Adorno's critique, argued that Fromm and other
"revisionists" had transformedpowerful and radical Freudian ideas into
conformist banalities. Marcuse argued that even though Freud and most
psychoanalystswere committedto bourgeois society, "psychoanalysiswas a
radically critical theory" (Marcuse, 1955b: 221). Marcuse likes his Freud
straightand defends such speculative and "metaphysical"ideas as the death
instinct and the hypothesis of the primal horde. The purging of Freud's
metapsychologyfrom psychoanalysishas meant that the "explosive connotations" of Freud's theory of the unconscious and sexuality "were all but
eliminated (Marcuse, 1955b: 226)."
The central theme of the revisionists, according to Marcuse, is that the
present environmentcaused more conflicts than allowed for in the orthodox
Freudianbiological model focused on sexual instinctsand the first five or six
years of life. As Marcuse puts it, revisionists, "move from past to present,"
from biology to culture and from constitution to environment, discarding
libido theoryandsubstituting"relatedness"(Marcuse,
1955b:226).26The result
is an eclectic and banal theory and "the laboring of the obvious, of routine
wisdom (Marcuse, 1955b: 227)."
While Marcuse'sessay was framedexplicitly aroundthe issue of Freudian
theory, there was, as with Adorno's earliercritique,a Marxist subtext to the
polemic. Ever since Marx's attacks on the utopian socialists, Marxists have
looked poorly on moral discourse (Aronson, 1995). Marcuseis rooted in this
traditionwhen he claims thatFrommrevives idealist ethics by suggesting that
it is possible to write of personality,care,responsibility,respect,of productive
love and happinessin the context of a totally alienatedmarketsociety. Thus
Fromm, for Marcuse,is neithera real Freudiannor a genuine Marxist.
26. The phrase"frompastto the present,"comes fromClaraThompson,whom Marcusecites (Marcuse, 1955: 226) and calls a "representativehistorianof the revisionists(Marcuse,1955: 226).

122 Canadian
Journalof Sociology
For Marcuse,the "style alone betraysthe attitude"(Marcuse,1955b:232)
- the revisionistsaremoralisticnot political,conformistnot critical.Marcuse
claims that Freud's writings are full of irony, insight and a willingness to
squarelyface the inevitableconflict betweeninstinctualnecessityand society.
In contrast, the neo-Freudian"mutilation"of the instinct theory simply
accentuates the positive, preaches about "inner strength and integrity
(Marcuse,1955b:233)," turnssocial issues into spiritualconcernsanddefines
neurosis as a moral problem. The writing style of the neo-Freudians,
accordingto Marcuse,"comesfrequentlyclose to thatof the sermon,or of the
social worker"(Marcuse, 1955b: 232), suggesting "the Power of Positive
Thinking(Marcuse,1955b:233)."Marcuserejectsboththerapyandtraditional
radical politics as solutions to the modem dilemma, instead arguing for a
"fundamentalchangein the instinctualas well as culturalstructure"(Marcuse,
1955b: 238). The first step towardsthis radicalprojectmust be an internal
battle within the left, a defence of orthodoxFreudianideas againstrevision.
Fromm's rebuttalappearedin the next two issues of Dissent (Fromm,
1955a; Fromm, 1956b). Fromm takes Marcuseto task for indiscriminately
lumpingHomey, Sullivanand Frommtogetheras well as makingelementary
FrommdismissesMarcuse'sassermisreadingsof both Sullivanand Freud.27
tion thatthe rejectionof drivetheoryleads to naive pre-Freudiansocial theory
and conservative conformist politics. And Fromm argues that Marcuse's
politics are deeply flawed by his unwillingnessto outlinea programthatlinks
his critique to practical movements to move beyond the present. Fromm
agreedwith much of Marcuse'sanalysisof capitalismbut dissentedfrom his
almost total rejectionof modernmarketsociety. Marcuse'sperspectivewas
a politics of nihilism since it left people only with the options of being a
martyror going insane.
27. For example, while Marcuseclaims that neo-Freudiansignore the early years of life, even a
quick readingof Sullivan'sworkmakesit clearthathe was centrallyconcernedwith the early
childhoodroots of schizophrenia,for example.It was obviousthatMarcuseknew little about
Sullivan's work, and did not respondseriously to Fromm'spoint. The issue of Marcuse's
readingof Freud is more complex, but most competentexperts on Freudwould agree that
Marcuse's account of Freud is, to be generous, creative. Fromm outlines a series of
misreadingsMarcusewas guilty of in his Dissent essay, in his laterbooks TheHeart of Man
(1964), The Crisis of Psychoanalysis(1970) and in his posthumouslypublishedbook The
Revision of Psychoanalysis (1992). The most simple and amusing error is that Marcuse
reproducesa chartin Eros and Civilizationthatrefersto regressioncompulsion.The proper
Freudianterm, of course, is repetitioncompulsion,somethingFrommwrites in the margins
of his personalcopy of Marcuse'sbook (ErichFrommArchives,Tubingen).Frommfelt that
Marcusehad regressionon the mind, blurringan accuratereadingof Freud'sthought.


Marcuse attempteda response to Fromm's discussion of Freud, a difficult
task since Marcusewas primarilya left Hegelian philosophernot a psychoanalytic theorist(Marcuse,1956b). Today one can find few serious defendersof
the death instinct, the primal horde or orthodox libido theory. Most of the
interestingwork in psychoanalysisrejects instinct theory and deals with, as
Fromm suggested it must, relatednessand identity (Greenbergand Mitchell,
1983; Benjamin, 1988). Fromm's neo-Freudianformer collaboratorKaren
Homey is now being rediscoveredas an early proponentof feminist object
relations (Chodorow, 1989; Westkott, 1986; Sayers, 1991). Sullivan's work
has given rise to the emergenceof interpersonalpsychoanalysis,an important
school of thought within contemporaryFreudian theory (Greenberg and
Mitchell, 1983). In addition,Fromm'sposition on Freudiantheoryhas gained
new influence in recent years (Burston, 1991; Cortinaand Maccoby, 1996;
Greenbergand Mitchell, 1983).
Marcuse's attackon neo-Freudianismfound an audienceamong the left at
the time, however, by the clever way in which he shifted the terms of the
debateaway from Freudiantheoryto the issue of Fromm'spolitical program.28
Marcuse quotes from Fromm's newly published The Sane Society (1955) in
an attemptto illustratethat Fromm's work is indeed conformistand partakes
of alienation(Marcuse,1956:80). Focusing on Fromm'spracticalsuggestions
for change, Marcusefalsely accuses Frommof being a promoterof industrial
psychology and scientific management(Marcuse, 1956: 80). Marcuse concludes with a dry run for what would later become a famous polemic in One
Dimensional Man (1964) for what he calls the "GreatRefusal." "Nihilism,"
Marcuse argues, "as the indictmentof inhumanconditions, may be a truly
humanistattitude- part of the GreatRefusal to play the game, to compromise with the bad 'positive"' (Marcuse, 1956: 81).
Marcuse had not even attemptedto documenthis assertionthat Fromm's
political errors were rooted somehow in his Freudian revisionism. While
Frommdrew freely from the Marxisttradition,he was as much an unorthodox
socialist as he was a renegade Freudian.Numerous young radicals would
28. It is also clear that Fromm did not fully understandat the time how harmfulthis polemic
would be to the reception of his work in America. There is no question that the fact that
Fromm's TheArt of Loving (1956) was publishedthe next year reinforced,however unfairly,
Marcuse's argumentthat Frommwas not a radical.In addition,Fromm hesitatedto respond
to Marcuse too strongly, since he worried about reinforcing the conservative attacks on
Marcusethat had emerged duringthe 1960s. Over the years Fromm would returnto clarify
his disagreementswith Marcuse(Fromm,1964; Fromm, 1970). Fromm'sessay "TheAlleged
Radicalismof HerbertMarcuse,"publishedin English 12 years after his death provides the
fullest development of his critique of Marcuse's understandingof Freud and his politics(
Fromm, 1992).

124 Canadian
Journalof Sociology
readFromm'sThe Sane Society and its influencewas widespreadamong the
youngergenerationof the late 1950s and early 1960s (Jamisonand Eyerman,
1994). Looking back at The Sane Society today, it is hard to avoid the
conclusion that it is, if anything,overly harshabout the realities of modern
society not excessively conformist.Marcusewas rightthatFromm'spractical
suggestionsfor social change were not well workedout, butFromm'scritique
of moderncapitalistsociety was perceptiveand powerfuleven if his strength
was not as a political strategistor organizer.
The polemics of Adorno and Marcuseisolated Frommnot only from the
FrankfurtSchool, but also withinMarxism,radicalsociology and the general
left intellectualculturethat he had such an influenceon in the 1940s, 1950s
and early 1960s.29The FrankfurtSchool soon gave rise to a growingbody of
scholarshipunderthe trademarkof critical theorythroughoutthe 1970s and
1980s (for a discussion of theoreticaltrademarkssee Lamont,1987). By the
1990s, critical theory has expandedin meaning from the original Frankfurt
School work to representa broaderbody of scholarshipin post-modern,postcolonial and cultural studies (Calhoun, 1995). Since Fromm had been excluded from the originalFrankfurtSchool canon,his workwas also generally
ignored in the broadercritical theory scholarship.The FrankfurtSchool had
been transformedfrom a relativelyobscurenetworkof scholarsto become an
influentialschool of thoughton the marginsof the academy.Frommhad become a forgottenintellectualwhose books continuedto sell but who was no
longertakenseriouslyas an intellectual,radicalor social scientist(McLaughlin,
1998b).
Beyond Marxism and Psychoanalysis
Fromm's exclusion from the FrankfurtSchool canon was intimatelytied to
conflicts within both psychoanalysis and Marxism over orthodoxies and
revisionisms.Adorno's critiqueof Frommconsisted of a curiousmixtureof
Leninist and Freudianorthodoxy, two perspectivesthat hardly seem compatible. Adorno's marshallingof Lenin's prestige within Marxism against
29. Despite the fact (or perhapsbecause of the fact) that Adorno and Marcuse articulateda
similarcritiqueof Fromm,therewas no love lost betweenAdornoand Marcuseon this issue.
Marcusehad triedto enlist Horkheimer'shelp in getting what would laterbecome Eros and
Civilizationpublishedin Germanybut when AdornoreadMarcuse'sDissent essay he wrote
Horkheimer:"In Dissent there is a long article by Herbertagainst the psychoanalytic
revisionists,which basically containsthe ideas we hold on the matter,althoughwe are not
mentionedin so much as a single word, which I find very strange"(cited in Wiggershaus,
1994:497). Adoro advised against helping Marcuse publish his work in Germany
(Wiggershaus,1994).


Frommwas largely a matterof style over substance,however,for Horkheimer
and the major members of the FrankfurtSchool inner circle were hardly
Bolshevists or even revolutionaries.It is an irony that althoughAdorno was
attackingFromm from the left in the 1930s, after the war both Horkheimer
and Adoro would leave the Marxistand radicaltraditionswhile Fromm was
an activist throughoutthe 1950s and 1960s and maintainedsocialist commitments until the end of his life in 1980 (Bronner, 1994). Yet the New Left
scholars who developed the FrankfurtSchool traditionin Americathroughout
the 1970s ignored this reality, rejectingFrommas a conformistliberal while
canonizing Horkheimerand Adornoas criticaltheorists(Agger, 1992; Alford,
1988; Benjamin, 1977; Jacoby, 1975; Jacoby, 1983; Kellner, 1984; Whitebook, 1994; Robinson, 1969; Tar, 1985; Buck-Morss, 1977). Even the critics
from both the left and the right of the FrankfurtSchool tended to ignore
Fromm (Therborn,1970; van den Berg, 1980).3"
The origin myths that legitimize schools of thought,intellectualtraditions
or movements are seldom without contradictionsand elements of hero worship. In a certain sense, Adorno's radicalstance was attractiveto many New
Left scholarswho felt the need for a "GreatRefusal"and admiredMao, without being revolutionariesthemselves.How can one explainthe fact the Breines
late 1960s collection on the work of HerbertMarcusewas dedicatedto Ho Chi
MinhandTheodorAdorno?(Breines,1970).Forintellectualswho came of political age duringwhatToddGitlincalled the "daysof rage"of the late 1960s, and
then developed theiracademiccareersin the 1970s, Adorno'sstyle suggested a
hardheadedradicalismas well as a culturalelitism that was an importantpart
of the attractionof "criticaltheory"(Jay, 1984). That critical theory had very
little in common with eitherLenin or Vietnamesecommunismwas besides the
point. Even though Horkheimer,Adoro and then Marcusehad modified and
departedfrom Marxistideas in importantways, they seemed connected to the
spirit of Marx,Engels and Lenin in ways thatFrommdid not.31
30. Neither Therborn,the AlthusserianMarxistcritic of the FrankfurtSchool, or critical theory's

mainstreamsociological opponent Axel van den Berg discuss Fromm in their articles on
critical theory (Therbor, 1970; van den Berg, 1980). Therbor knew that Fromm was
"closely associated"with the early Institute(Therbor, 1970: 66) but only discusses who he
sees as the "core members":Marcuse,Adornoand Horkheimer.Van den Berg refers to "the
original membersof the FrankfurtSchool (particularlyAdorno,Horkheimer,and Marcuse)"
(van den Berg, 1980: 449) and devotes the bulk of his discussion to Habermaswithout a
single mention of Fromm.
31. This is in fact why Lukacswas such an importantfigure to scholarsinterestedin constructing
a useablehistoryof "criticaltheory"(Jay,1984). Lukacs'relationshipto the Frankfurtscholars
and the criticaltheorytraditionhas been exaggerated,partlybecause he had the revolutionary
credentials that legitimated critical theory's place in Marxism while also providing a
philosophicalfoundationfor the culturalcriticismand analysisthatwas the centralfocus espe-


Adorno's injunction that Fromm must read Lenin was largely a rhetorical
move to eliminate Fromm from the legitimate boundaries of debate within
Marxism. In Adorno's 1936 letter to Horkheimer, Fromm was presented as
"sentimental," a social democrat, an anarchist and as someone using the same
tricks as "bourgeois individualists" who attempt to dismiss Marxist insights.
Adorno's later writings on Fromm developed other themes, arguing that neoFreudianism had moved outside the legitimate boundaries of psychoanalysis
for being excessively sociological and his sociology was too individualistic
(Adorno, 1967; Adorno, 1968), an argument to which both psychoanalysts and
sociologists have long been sympathetic (Menninger, 1941; Green, 1946).
Marcuse's critique was simply another version of this boundary work since
for Marcuse, Fromm was not a Marxist because he was for scientific
management and conformist industrial sociology, moralism, and did not
challenge the capitalist ownership of the means of production.
From One Orthodoxy to Another
Adorno's and Marcuse's adherence to Freudian orthodoxy also played a
central role in the exclusion of Fromm from the Frankfurt School tradition.
One can only speculate why Freud became such an important intellectual
influence and icon for the FrankfurtSchool.32Whatever the reasons, adherence
to Freudian orthodoxy provided important internal as well as external
legitimation functions for the Frankfurt School. There was a serious problem
emerging within the Frankfurt School, for while they started as a network of
left intellectuals, Horkheimer and Adorno were rapidly moving away from
radicalism (Bronner, 1994). The largest base of support would eventually be
among the New Left generation that would find Marcuse's work so appealing,
yet most historians and scholars of the Frankfurt School ignore Horkheimer's
and Adorno's relative conservativism (but see Bronner, 1994). Orthodox
Freudian theory provided a glue that united Horkheimer, Adorno and Marcuse
of FrankfurtSchool scholarsin the academy.My pointhereis not thatLukacs'philosophical

and literarywork is withoutvalue, but only thatthe legitimationneeds andpoliticalconcerns
that scholarsbroughtto readinghis work profoundlyinfluencedhis reception.
32. Freudwas a thinkerwho hadcomparablestatureto Marxandthis providedimportantcultural
capital for critical theory. In addition,orthodoxpsychoanalystswere increasinglygaining
influence among the intellectualelite in Americafrom the 1930s throughto the early 1960s
(Hale, 1995). Adornoand Marcuse'sdefenceof orthodoxpsychoanalytictheoryassuredthem
of allies among the literaryand culturalelite (Wiggershaus,1994). All this was politically
convenient for the FrankfurtSchool scholars who made a point of emphasizing their
adherenceto a conservativeFreud,as they were tryingto survive as radicalJewish emigres
in Cold War America(Coser, 1984).


against Fromm, while helping downplay the internal political differences
within the school. Orthodoxpsychoanalysisprovideda convenient symbolic
foil for the FrankfurtSchool since Horkheimerand Adorno could identify
with Freud's culturalpessimism while Marcusecould creatively re-interpret
libido theory in the course of his argument for a cultural and sexual
radicalism.It was the functionof the originmyths withinthe FrankfurtSchool
to obscure these various contradictions.
The irony, of course, is that psychoanalystslargely ignored Adorno and
Marcuse,and few contemporaryFreudianswould defend the orthodoxinstinct
theory that Adorno and Marcuse were so insistent on preserving. Orthodox
Freudiansin the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s appreciatedMarcuse's critique of
Fromm since it reinforcedtheir argumentthat neo-Freudianismwas not real
psychoanalysis.Yet Fromm'sposition won out in the long run even while he
himself is largely ignored within Freudiantraininginstitutes.Psychoanalysts
were not readyfor Frommin the 1930s and 1940s, but contemporaryFreudian
theoryis dominatedby object relations,interpersonaland self psychology and
a focus on meanings not drives, just as Fromm argued it must be decades
earlier (Greenbergand Mitchell, 1983; Burston, 1991; Cortinaand Maccoby,
1996; Benjamin, 1988; Chodorow, 1989). Fromm's work is importantfor
critical theory precisely because his effort to combine radicalsociology with
depthpsychology was based on a firm understandingof psychoanalytictheory
while Adorno and Marcuse were dabbling with the Freudiantraditionin a
highly abstractand speculative matter.
The Economics of Therapy and the Professionalization of Psychoanalysis
Recent scholarshipon the FrankfurtSchool has been re-writingthis history
but these new origins myths that are re-insertingFromm into critical theory
remain insufficiently sociological (Richert, 1986; Burston, 1991; Kellner,
1989; Bronner, 1994; Anderson, 1998, Wiggershaus,1994). Criticaltheorists
writing about their own history tend to treat the conflict between Fromm,
Adorno and Marcuse as being rooted in differentinterpretationsof Freudian
theory, personalityconflicts or differentwritingor culturalstyles (Jay, 1973).
Fromm's exclusion from the FrankfurtSchool can only be understoodif the
conflicts over ideas are placed in the context of a sociologically informed
account of the economics of therapyand the professionalizationof psychoanalysis.
The majorsociological differencebetween Frommand the othermembers
of the FrankfurtSchool was that Fromm was a practisinganalyst while the
others had little interest in therapy.This had profoundconsequences for the
development of critical theory. The contemporaryfame of Adorno and
Marcuse can obscure the fact that they were relatively marginal German

intellectuals stranded in America in the 1930s and 1940s, dependent on

Horkheimer'sresourcesand sponsorship.NeitherAdorno or Marcusecould
get a permanentacademicjob in Americain the 1930s and 1940s, and they
needed support and sponsorshipfrom the FrankfurtSchool. In contrast,
Frommmade a very good living as a therapist.
The resources and connections Fromm gained from association with
Horkheimerwere a bonus not a necessity.This is one reason,of course, why
HorkheimertreatedFrommas an equal but also helps explain why he would
break with Fromm in favour of Adorno and Marcuse.It is clear that from
Horkheimer'sperspective, Adorno and Marcuse would be far more loyal
proponentsof the critical theory that Horkheimerinsisted on controlling.
Unlike Adorno and Marcuse, Fromm was in a position to stand-up to
Horkheimer,guaranteeingan eventualbreak.When Frommbecame famous
with the best-selling Escape from Freedom (1941), this only solidified an
independencethatalreadyexistedbecauseof the economicsof psychoanalytic
therapyin the 1930s and 1940s (McLaughlin,1996a).33These financialrealities played an importantpartin the polemics within the FrankfurtSchool.34
The anger with which the FrankfurtSchool scholarsattackedFrommfor
his Freudianrevisionismwas rootedin more than a conflict over ideas. The
fight aboutpsychoanalysiswithinthe FrankfurtSchool was intimatelytied up
with Horkheimer'seffortsto legitimizecriticaltheory.Horkheimerhadhelped
psychoanalystsestablish an instituteassociatedwith the Institutefor Social
Research at FrankfurtUniversity, and had even received two letters from
Freud thanking him for his efforts(Jay, 1973: 88). While in America,
Horkheimerkept up a correspondencewith various prominentpsychoanalysts.35 Horkheimer was a highly political animal, adept at networking. He
33. Wiggershausargues that Horkheimer'sprobablegoal was to keep Fromm associated with

critical theory in a more informalway while not using resourceson him. In my view, the
conflict between Fromm and Adorno,the politics of psychoanalysis,Fromm's new found
fame and insistence on breakingfrom all orthodoxiesmade this strategyimpossible.
34. The vehementtone of Marcuse'sdenouncementof Fromm,for example,was perhapsrelated
to the fact that Marcusehimself worked for the United States governmentthroughoutthe
post-war period until the Korean war while during this period Fromm had been the
independentradicalthat Marcuseaspiredto be. One need not be an orthodoxFreudianto
suggest that Marcusewas protestingtoo much when he claimedthatFrommwas a political
sell-out. Frommhimself was perplexedas to Marcuse'semploymentchoices. In a letter to
Raya Dunayeskaya,Frommwritesthat "I neverunderstoodwhy Marcusestayed at the State
Departmentfor several years after the war. For a man with his theoreticalambitionsand
capacitiesthis seems a strangeway to spendtime. Not that I have ever takenseriously what
some of his enemies said, thathe was really somethinglike spying on the radicalmovement,
but still it puzzles me why he did that at all" (Letterfrom Frommto Dunayevskaya,dated
November 25, 1976, ErichFrommArchives,Tibingen).
35. For example, see the letters between Horkheimer and Karl Landauer (Horkheimer
1995b:140-143), KarlMenninger(Horkheimer1995d: 140-142), ErikErikson(Horkheimer

could not help but notice thatFreudianswere growing in influence in America

and were also a Europeanimportlooking for legitimation and allies.
Horkheimerand orthodoxFreudianshad forged an informalalliance. There
is no reason to doubt the fact thatHorkheimerand especially Adorno had real
andsincereintellectualreasonsfor disagreeingwith Fromm'srevisionof Freud.
Nonetheless, from whatwe know aboutboth Horkheimer'sand Adorno's concern with institutionand reputationbuilding,36it seems implausible that the
internalpolitics of the psychoanalyticestablishmentwere not an importantpart
of their calculations as they positioned themselves against Fromm.
Fromm and the Psychoanalytic Establishment
This accountof an alliancebetweencriticaltheoristsand orthodoxpsychoanalysts risks suggesting an implausible conspiracy theory. Yet psychoanalytic
institutesin mid-centuryAmerica were conspiratorial,resembling a paranoid
sect as much as a school of thoughtor profession (Hale, 1995; Roazen, 1994;
Burston, 1991). Furthermore,for close to fifty years now Frommhas been one
of the most hated Freudianrevisionists (Rogow, 1970). OrthodoxFreudians
were highly motivatedenemies of Frommand it was not possible for Horkheimer to work with psychoanalystsin the 1940s and 1950s if criticaltheory was
associated with neo-Freudian psychoanalysis (McLaughlin, 1998). The
relationshipbetween the FrankfurtSchool and orthodoxFreudiansregarding
psychoanalytic revisionism could best be described as informal collusion
ratherthan as a conscious strategyto discreditFromm.
Orthodox Freudianattacks on Fromm and against neo-Freudianismhad
increased as Homey and Fromm broke with Freud and became famous
intellectualsand continuedfor decades (Mclaughlin,1988a).37Especially after
1995c: 762-765), and Heinz Hartmann(Horkheimer1995d:330-332). In Horkheimer'sletter

to Menningerwrittenfrom FrankfurtJune 20, 1950, he was very direct in pointing out how
critical theory could help the Freudiancause. He wrote: "Unfortunately,apartfrom our little
group, nobody seems to realize the tremendouscontributionpsychoanalysiscould make here
in education of futureteachers,politicians,writers,mouldersof opinion and thereforein the
fostering of peace. Shortlybefore the outbreakof National Socialism, I was instrumentalin
bringingthe first PsychoanalyticInstituteto a Germanuniversity.It was much too late as to
do some good. Today I would like to help making psychoanalysis part of the German
academic education before it is again too late" (Horkheimer1995d:140-142).
36. Wiggershaus refers to the fact that Adorno fought over the book attributions in The
AuthoritarianPersonality, particularlyover the credit for the F-scale chapter,even though
Sanfordhad writtenit (Wiggershaus,1994: 410-411).
37. A typical example is C.G. Schoefeld's "ErichFromm's attack upon the Oedipus Complex:
A brief critique," in The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease," (Schoefeld, 1965).
Schoelfeld suggests that "Fromm'scriticisms of one of the cornerstonesof Freudiantheory
- the Oedipus Complex - are seriously questionable ... [and] ought to be examined,

Schoelfeld suggests that "Fromm'scriticisms of one of the cornerstonesof

Freudiantheory- the Oedipus Complex - are seriously questionable ...
[and] ought to be examined, the publicationof EscapefromFreedom(1941),
orthodoxpsychoanalystsbecameincreasinglyconcernedwithwhattheysaw as
the distortion and dilution of true Freudianinsights (McLaughlin, 1996b;
McLaughlin,1998a;Herberg,1957;Burston,1991).PsychiatristKarlMenninger was amongthe firstrepresentativesof the psychoanalyticestablishmentto
attackFrommfor his breakwithFreudianorthodoxywhenhe reviewedEscape
From Freedom in The Nation (Menninger, 1942). Menningerargued that
althoughFrommwritesas if "heconsideredhimself a psychoanalyst,"his lack
of medical and psychoanalyticcredentials disqualified him from serious
consideration. Fromm is a "distinguishedsociologist" who, Menninger
concedes, is "wholly within his rights in applyingpsychoanalytictheory to
sociological problems."Yet as Menningerputs it,
The isolation of the author himself is ... indicated by his singular selection of authorities.
Although the book purportsto be psychoanalyticin character,almost no psychoanalystsare
quoted or cited. The name of Freud,to be sure, is invokeda dozen times or more,but each time
with some patronizingremarkto the effect that while Freudhad some good ideas along this or
that line, his greaterror,which Frommcorrects,is so and so. This curiouspresumptuousnesson
the part of a relatively unknown author writing in a field with which he is not specifically
identified,makesfor strangeovertoneswhich blurthe clarityandforce of the book. No intelligent
personbelieves that Freudsaid the last word, but in the field of thoughtwhich Fromminvokes
for the elaborationof his theoryFreuddid say the first word, and any attemptto revise it should
be undertakenwith a full sense of the magnitudeand seriousnessof the task and uponempirical
and experimentalgrounds(Menninger,1942:317).
Escapefrom Freedomis a "subjective"book, writtenin a "heavy,tedious

style" thatcontains "manyflatly incorrectstatements,especially of Freudian
theories."The doctrinaireFreudianand political radical Otto Fenichel also
attackedEscape FromFreedom,accusingFrommof abandoningpsychoanalysis and the idea of the unconscious(Fenichel, 1944).
Horkheimerandcriticaltheory'srelationshipto Frommwas intimatelytied
to these largerintellectualcurrents.MartinJay's TheDialectical Imagination
tells the story of how the important psychoanalyst Ernest Kris wrote
Lowenthala lettera yearafterthe publicationof Escapefrom Freedomasking
them to clarify the Institute's attitude regardingFreud (Jay, 1973: 102).
Horkheimer'sadvice to Lowenthalregardinga properresponseis, as Jay puts
it, "extremelyilluminating"(Jay, 1973: 102). For Horkheimer,"psychology
cially since Fromm's view (sic) are influentialand his books reach what appearsto be an
ever-increasing audience" (Schoefeld, 1965: 580). There are numerous other examples
(Burston, 1991).


without libido is in a way no psychology" and "we have to refer orthodoxically to Freud's earlier writings ... [while] Fromm and Homey get back to
commonsense psychology" (Jay, 1973: 102). Horkheimer was clearly
concerned about presentinga certain image and a common Institutefront in
relationto orthodoxFreudianswho were alarmedat the criticisms of classical
psychoanalytictheory presentedin Fromm's work.38
The intensity of Fromm's conflicts with the Freudian establishment in
America can be illuminated partly by a sociological understandingof the
professions. Orthodox Freudians disliked Fromm's criticisms of classical
Freudiantheory for theoreticalreasons, but throughoutthe 1930s and 1940s
Fromm was attackedby orthodoxpsychoanalystsalso because he was not a
medical doctor.Frommand other"lay analysts"threatenedthe professionalizing strategy of Freudianswho were attemptingto carve out a position for
psychoanalysis as an elite specializationwithin medical psychiatry(Roazen,
1974; Hale, 1995; McLaughlin, 1998a). The fact that Fromm was a famous
political radicalfurtherthreatenedthe reputationof psychoanalysissince they
did not want to be associatedwith the sexual and literaryradicalFreudianism
that had been so influential among American intellectuals in the 1920s and
early 1930s (Hale, 1995; McLaughlin,1998a).
Fromm's reputation among orthodox Freudians declined even more
dramaticallyin the 1950s when he published numerouspopulararticles and
best-selling books attacking central elements of orthodox Freudian theory
(Fromm, 1950; Fromm, 1951; Fromm, 1959; McLaughlin, 1998). Fromm
criticized the patriarchalbias of Freud's view of gender, questioned the
universality of the Oedipal complex and argued that psychoanalysis must
engage historical sociology and cultural anthropologyin order to transcend
biological determinism.In addition,Fromm was one of few psychoanalysts
willing to challenge Ernest Jones' hagiographicthree volume The Life and
Workof SigmundFreudpublishedbetween 1953and 1957 (McLaughlin,1996a;
Roazen, 1996). Worst of all, from the perspective of the psychoanalytic
establishment,Fromm made these criticisms of Freudianorthodoxyin mass
market books and in a Saturday Review article and not obscure clinical
journals (Fromm, 1958; Fromm, 1959) and was a harsh critic of the organizationalstructureanddogmatismof Freud'smovement.He was thus a threat
to the client base as well as the ideology of Freudians(McLaughlin, 1998).
38. In response to readinga draftof The Dialectical Imagination,Frommmade a point that was
not emphasized in Jay's book. Fromm pointed out that it was remarkablethat Lowenthal
would seek Horkheimer'sapprovalbefore communicatingwith Dr. Kris. From Fromm, this
"gives a real clue to the spirit in which the Institute has developed more and more: Its
secretiveness and lack of frankness"(Frommto Jay, in Kessler and Funk, 1991: 234).

132 Canadian
Journalof Sociology
Whither the Frankfurt School?
Contemporarysocial scientists can usefully draw upon the FrankfurtSchool
for insights but we must rememberthat the traditionhas been selectively
constructedover the last 50 years or so. Frommdid not fit into the history
thatHorkheimerand Adornoneededto accomplishtheirgoals. The Frankfurt
School needed a radical image without getting too involved in practical
politics, especiallyin Americawherethey were vulnerableas JewishMarxists.
Horkheimerwouldlaterbecomesuspiciousof Habermaspreciselybecausehe,
like Fromm,was getting involved in the movementsof the 1960s,jeopardizing critical theory's mandarinstature(Wiggershaus,1994). The Frankfurt
School also needed a complex and obscure language and an elite cultural
sensibility; Fromm's popularizing style tended to undercut the cultural
boundariesessentialfor the FrankfurtSchool's success (McLaughlin,1996a).
Fromm'sbooks were clearly writtenandextremelysuccessfulon the marketplace for ideas, exposing generationsof Americansto Germanthought,Marx,
Freud,Weberandthe existentialisttradition.ForHorkheimerandAdorno,this
was a dilutionof criticalinsights and Fromm'ssuccess was practicallyproof
of the shallownessof his ideas.
Depth psychology and the ideas of Freudare isolated today in the social
sciences, even while psychoanalyticcriticaltheoryhas foundstrongdefenders
in Englishdepartmentsandculturalstudiesprograms,particularlythroughthe
influence of Lacan and various post-modernisttheorists (Turkle, 1992).
Fromm's exclusion from the historyof the FrankfurtSchool closed him off
from the recent interest in bringing psychology back into cultural and
sociological theory, since many scholars who came to intellectualmaturity
duringthe 1960s and 1970s were influencedby the one side-sidedcriticisms
made of Frommby FrankfurtSchool thinkersand the youngerscholarsand
historianswho accepted the origin myths developed by the originalcritical
theorists (Robinson, 1969; Benjamin, 1988; Agger, 1992; Alford, 1988;
Jacoby, 1975; Jacoby, 1983).Thisis a shame,however,since the strengthof
Fromm's approachto psychoanalysiswas that he viewed the traditionas an
empiricallybased social theory, an importantcounterweightto a sometimes
excessively abstractand speculativeFreudpreferredby post-moder theorists
in the humanities.Psychoanalysiscan contributeto social science only if the
insights of the traditionare articulatedclearly and concisely in ways that
engage debates outside Freudianinstitutesand conferencesof psychoanalytically influencedacademics.Fromm'swork, more so than eitherAdornoor
Lacan, can help in encouraginga dialogue betweenpsychoanalyticperspectives and mainstreamsocial scientists unwilling to enter the hermetically
sealed world of critical theory.In addition,Fromm'sfocus on emotions and
the irrationalcan providea useful correctiveto what some argueis the overly
rationalistversion of critical theorydevelopedand promotedby Habermas.

It is not surprisingthat Fromm's work was written out of the history of

critical theory. Fromm's synthetic approach, fame and independence and
insistence on breakingfrom all orthodoxies,made it difficult for Horkheimer
to carve out and maintaina distinctiveFrankfurtSchool approach,allied with
but not identical to psychoanalysis, Marxism and Hegelian philosophy
(McLaughlin,1996a). Frommsharedmuch with his formerFrankfurtSchool
but the distinguishingfeatureof his thought was a refusal to
collaborators,39
be tied to one school of thoughtor tradition,be it neo-Freudianism,Marxism,
psychoanalysis, sociology or critical theory. Fromm's clear and concise
writing was fundamentally at odds with the style of Horkheimer's and
Adoro's vision of critical theory.
Horkheimer got the FrankfurtSchool history he needed, at least until
recently. But it is not a history that is particularlyuseful for those of us
interested in using the insights of critical theory to theorize about and
empiricallystudy social reality(Frommand Maccoby, [1970] 1996).40Further
and extensive primary source research should be done on the history of
Fromm'srelationshipwith the FrankfurtSchool, providingus with details and
a nuanced understandingof how both intellectual and resource conflicts
shaped the early developmentof critical theory.41In addition,it is time for a
serious re-evaluationof the theoreticalstatusof psychoanalysiswithin critical
theory, an issue that must be addressedon intellectual grounds albeit with
39. It is interestingthat Marcusetried to get Frommto review One DimensionalMan (1964) for
The New YorkTimes Book Review, feeling that Fromm would understandthe work in ways
that few others would. Marcuseobviously also was thinkingof the marketvalue of a review
by as famous an intellectualas Fromm.Marcusedid not realize how negativelyFrommwould
have reviewed the work if he had agreedto do so. Nonetheless, Fromm and Marcuseshared
similar intellectual training and world views and the intensity of their disagreementwas
related to how much they had in common.
40. Fromm and Maccoby's recently republishedSocial Character in a Mexican Village is an
importantexample of how Fromm was committedto empiricallytesting critical theory, in
engagementwith social science literatureand methods.See Michael Maccoby's Introduction
to the TransactionPress version of Social Characterfor informationabout how this book is
essentially a revised and more developed version of the Weimarworkersstudy (Frommand
Maccoby, [1970] 1996).
41. Clearly my account here is overly polemical, but I am raising an issue that has been largely
ignored by a generation of scholars otherwise quite interested in the "power/knowledge"
connection. A sharp framing of the issue will stimulatefurtherresearchand debate. If it is
the case that only the exaggerationsare true in psychoanalysis,then perhapsthe same is true
of the sociology of knowledge. While the literaturewe have now is dominatedby Frankfurt
School loyalists and hostile detractorsof critical theory as well as partisans of Fromm,
intellectual historians could provide us a useful service by re-writing the history of the
FrankfurtSchool in a balanced manner.

attentionto the sociologicaldynamicsemphasizedhere.42This importantempirical and theoreticalwork will not be produced,however, withoutfirst chalof the historyof the
lenging the originmyththathas shapedourunderstanding
FrankfurtSchool and distortedthe furtherdevelopmentof criticaltheory.
References
Adorno,Theodor,Elsie Frenkel-Brunswik,Daniel J. Levinson,R. Nevitt Sanford
1950 The AuthoritarianPersonality.New York:Harperand Row.
Adoro, Theodor
67-80.
1967 "Sociology and Psychology,"New Left Review46(November/December):
79-97.
1968 "Sociology and Psychology II" New Left Review47(January-February):
Anderson,Kevin
1998
"The young Erich Fromm's contributionto criminology,"Justice Quarterly15(4):
401-430.
Agger, Ben
1992 The Discourse of Domination:From FrankfurtSchool to Postmodernism.Evanston:
NorthwesternUniversityPress.
Alexander,Jeffrey
1987 "Marxism (2): The Critical Theory of Herbert Marcuse." In Twenty Lectures:
Sociological Theory Since World War II, pp. 349-373. New York: Columbia
UniversityPress.
Alford, C. Fred
1988 Narcissism:Socrates, the FrankfurtSchool, and PsychoanalyticTheory.New Haven:
Yale UniversityPress.
Aronson,Ronald
1995 AfterMarxism.New York:GuilfordPress.
Benjamin,Jessica
1977 "Theend of internalization:Adorno'ssocial psychology."Telos 32: 42-64.
1988 The Bonds of Love: Psychoanalysis,Feminism,and the Problemof Domination.New
York: Pantheon.
42. A fuller discussion of the intellectualdifferencesbetweenFrommand the FrankfurtSchool

over the issue of Freud would be difficult because only Fromm wrote extensively about
psychoanalytictheory,and Marcuseand especially Adornoseldom systematicallyaddressed
these concernsafter their polemicalattackson neo-Freudianism.Even as ardenta defender
of Adorno's social psychology as Deborah Cook concedes that he "made no systematic
attempt"to reconcile psychoanalysisand Marxism(Cook, 1996: 191).
My argumentthat Adorno and Marcuse were motivatedby a concern with excluding
Fromm from the historyof the FrankfurtSchool is, in my view, reinforcedby the fact that
they generallyavoided mentioningFrommin printin lateryears. Moreover,despite the fact
that HabermasunderstoodFromm's importantrole in the Instituteand to his credit stayed
above that fray, his discussion of Freudlargely ignores clinical data and the all important
issue of emotions.At a laterdate, I intendto publisha fullerengagementwith the theoretical
issues raisedby the use of psychoanalysiswithin criticaltheory.


Bonss, Wolfgang
"Introductionto ErichFromm'sThe WorkingClass in WeimarGermany."Cambridge:
1984
HarvardUniversity Press.
Breines, Paul(editor)
Critical Interruptions:New Left Perspectives on HerbertMarcuse. New York.
1970
Bronner,Stephen Eric
1994
Of Critical Theoryand its Theorists.London:Blackwell.
Brunner,Jose
1994
"Lookinginto the heartsof the workers,or: How Erich Frommturnedcritical theory
into empirical research,"Political Psychology 15(4): 631-654.
Buck-Morss, Susan
1977 The Origin of Negative Dialectics: Theodor W. Adorno, WalterBenjamin, and the
FrankfurtSchool. New York: The Free Press.
Burston, Daniel
The Legacy of Erich Fromm.Cambridge:HarvardUniversity Press.
1991
Calhoun, Craig
Critical Social Theory.Oxford:Blackwell.
1995
Camic, Charles
1992 "Reputationand predecessorselection: Parsons and the Institutionalists,"American
Sociological Review 57(4): 421-445.
Chodorow, Nancy
1989 Feminismand Psychoanalytic Theory.New Haven: Yale University Press.
Connerton,Paul (editor)
Critical Sociology. New York: Penguin.
1976
Cook, Deborah
1996 "The sunderedtotality: Adorno'sFreudo-Marxism,"Journalfor the Theoryof Social
Behaviour 25(2): 191-215.
Cortina,Mauricio and Michael Maccoby
1996 "The Neglect of Fromm's Contributionsto Psychoanalysis."In Cortinaand Maccoby
(editors), A Prophetic Analyst: Erich Fromm's Contributionsto Psychoanalysis, pp.
1-60. New Jersey: Jason Aronson
Coser, Lewis
1984 Refugee Scholars in America:TheirImpactand TheirExperiences.New Haven: Yale
University Press.
Christie, Richard,and Marie Jahoda
1954 Studies in the Scope and Method of the AuthoritarianPersonality. Glencoe, Ill.
Fenichel, Otto
1944 "Psychoanalyticremarkson Fromm's book Escape from Freedom,"Psychoanalytic
Review 31(2): 133-152.
Friedman,Lawrence
1990 Menninger:The Family and the Clinic. Lawrence:University of Kansas Press.
Fromm, Erich
1941 Escape from Freedom. New York:Farrarand Rhinehart.
1947 Man for Himself: Towardsa Psychology of Ethics. New York: Rinehart.
1950 Psychoanalysis and Religion, New Haven: Yale University Press.
The Forgotten Language. New York:GrovePress.
1951


1955a
1955b
1956a
1956b
1958
1959
1961
1964
1970
1984
1992
"The humanimplicationsof instinctivisticradicalism."Dissent 2(4): 342-349.

The Sane Society. New York:Rinehart.
The Art of Loving.New York:Harperand Row.
"A counter-rebuttal
to HerbertMarcuse."Dissent 3(1): 81-83.
"Psychoanalysis- scientism or fanaticism?,"SaturdayReviewJune 14: 11-13.
SigmundFreud's Mission:An Analysisof His Personalityand Influence.New York.
Marx's Conceptof Man. New York:Ungar.
The Heart of Men. New York:Harperand Row.
The Crisis of Psychoanalysis.New York:Holt, Rinehartand Winston.
The WorkingClass in WeimarGermany.Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress.
The Revision of Psychoanalysis.Boulder:Westview Press
Fromm,Erich and Michael Maccoby

[1970] 1996
Social Characterin a Mexican Village. New Jersey:TransactionPress.
Funk, Rainer
1982 Erich Fromm:The Courageto be Human.New York:Continuum.
Green, ArnoldW.
1946 "Sociologicalanalysisof Homey andFromm,"TheAmericanJournalof Sociology51:
533-540.
Greenberg,Jay and StephenMitchell
1983 ObjectRelations in PsychanalyticTheory.Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress.
Habermas,Jirgen
1971 Knowledgeand HumanInterests.Boston: Beacon Press.
Hale, Nathan
1995 The Rise and Crisis of Psychoanalysis.New York:Oxford.
Hamilton,Richard
1986 "Review of Erich Fromm The Working Class in Weimar Germany," Society
March/April:82-83.
Hausdorf,Don
1972 Erich Fromm.New York:Twayne.
Held, David
1980 Introductionto CriticalTheory:FromHorkheimerto Habermas.London:Hutchinson.
Herberg,Will
1957 "Freudand the Revisionists."In BenjaminNelson, ed., Freud and the 20th Century,
pp. 143-163. Cleveland:MeridianBooks.
Horkheimer,Max
1995a Max HorkheimerGesammelteSchriftenBand 15: 1913-1936. Herausgegebenvon
GunzelinSchmid Noerr, S. Fisher:Frankfurt
am Main.
1995b Max HorkheimerGesammelteSchriftenBand 16: 1937-1940. Herausgegebenvon
Alfred Schimdtund GunzelinSchmid Noerr, S. Fisher:Frankfurtam Main.
1995c Max HorkheimerGesammelteSchriftenBand 17: 1941-1948. Herausgegebenvon
Gunzelin Schmid Noerr, S. Fisher:Frankfurtam Main.
1995d Max HorkheimerGesammelteSchriftenBand 18: Briefwechsel1949-1973. Herausgegeben von GunzelinSchmid Noerr,S. Fisher:Frankfurtam Main.
Russell
Jacoby,
1975 Social Amnesia: ConformistPsychologyfrom Adler to Laing. Boston: Beacon Press.
1983 The Repressionof Psychoanalysis:Otto Fenichel and the Political Freudians.New
York:Basic.


Jamison, Andrew and Ron Eyerman
1994 Seeds of the Sixties. Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress.
Jay, Martin
The Dialectical Imagination:A History of the FrankfurtSchool and the Institute of
1973
Social Research. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
1984 Marxism and Totality: The Adventures of a Conceptfrom Lukdcs to Habermas.
Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress.
Kellner, Douglas
1984 Herbert Marcuse and the Crisis of Marxism. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
1989
Critical Theory, Marxism and Modernity. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University
Press.
Kessler, Michael and RainerFunk, (editors)
1992 Erich Fromm und die FrankfurterSchule. Tiibingen:A. FranckeVerlag.
Knapp,Gerhard
1989
The Art of Living: Erich Fromm'sLife and Works.Peter Lang: New York.
Kurzweil, Edith
The Freudians:A ComparativePerspective. New Haven: Yale University Press.
1995
Lamont, Michele
1987 "How to become a dominant French philosopher: The case of Jacques Derrida,"
AmericanJournal of Sociology 95(May): 584-622.
Lasch, Christopher
1977 Haven in a Heartless World.New York: Basic.
1979
The Cultureof Narcissism. New York: Basic.
L6wenthal, Leo
1987 An UnmasteredPast. Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress.
Maccoby, Michael
"The two voices of Erich Fromm:The propheticand the analytic,"Society 32(July/
1995
August):72-82.
Marcuse, Herbert
1955a Eros and Civilization:A Philosophical InquiryInto Freud. Boston: Beacon Press.
1955b "The social implicationsof Freudianrevisionism,"Dissent 2(Summer):221-40.
"A reply to Erich Fromm,"Dissent 3(Winter):81-83.
1956
1964
One-DimensionalMan. Boston: Beacon Press.
McLaughlin,Neil
1996a Escapefrom Orthodoxy:A Sociology of KnowledgeAnalysis of the Rise and Fall of
Erich Fromm. PhD dissertation,Sociology, The City University of New York.
1996b "Nazism,nationalismandthe sociology of emotions:Escapefrom Freedomrevisited,"
Sociological Theory 14(3): 421-441.
1998a "Why do schools of thought fail? Neo-Freudianismas a case study in the sociology
of knowledge," The Journal of the History of the Behavioural Sciences 34(2):
113-134.
1998b "How to become a forgottenintellectual:Intellectualmovementsand the case of Erich
Fromm,"Sociological Forum 13(2): 215-246.
Menninger,Karl
1942
"Lonelinessin the modernworld,"Nation March 14: 317.


Morrow,Raymond
1985 "Criticaltheoryandcriticalsociology,"Reviewof CanadianSociologyand Anthropology 22(5): 710-735.
Mullins, Nicholas
1973 Theoryand TheoryGroupsin ContemporarySociology.New York:Harperand Row.
O'Neill, John, (editor)
1976 On Critical Theory.New York:Seabury.
Platt,Jennifer
1983 "Thedevelopmentof the 'ParticipantObservation'methodin sociology: Originmyth
and history,"Journalof the Historyof BehaviouralScience 19(October):379-396.
1985 "Weber's verstehen and the history of qualitative research,"British Journal of
Sociology 36(3): 448-466.
1996 A History of Sociological Methods in America. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity
Press.
Richert,John
1986 "TheFromm-Marcusedebaterevisited,"Theoryand Society 15(3):181-214.
Roazen, Paul
1974 Freud and His Followers. New York:Knopf.
1990 EncounteringFreud: The Politics and Histories of Psychoanalysis.New Brunswick:
RutgersUniversityPress.
1996 "Fromm'sCourage."In Cortinaand Maccoby (editors),A PropheticAnalyst: Erich
Fromm's Contributionsto Psychoanalysis.New Jersey:Jason Aronson.
Paul
Robinson,
1969 The FreudianLeft. New York:Harperand Row.
Rodden,John
1989 The Politics of Literary Reputation:The Making and Claiming of "St. George"
Orwell. New York:OxfordUniversityPress.
Samelson,Franz
1974 "History,originmythandideology: 'Discovery'of social psychology,"Journalfor the
Theoryof Social Behaviour4(Fall): 467-488.
Sayers, Janet
1991 Mothersof Psychoanalysis.New York:Norton.
Schaar,John
1961 Escape from Authority:The Perspectivesof Erich Fromm.New York:Basic Books.
Schoefeld, C.G.
1965 "ErichFromm'sattackuponthe OedipusComplex:A brief critique,"The Journalof
Nervousand MentalDisease 141(5): 580-585.
Shils, Edward
'Left' and 'Right,"'In Christieand Jahoda,Studies in the Scope
1954 "Authoritarianism:
and Methodof the AuthoritarianPersonality,pp 24-49. Glencoe, I11.
Smith, Robert
1997 "The Bearingof Erich Fromm's The WorkingClass in WeimarGermanyon current
studies of Nazism," paper presented to the annual meetings of the American
Sociological Association,Toronto,Ontario,August.
Tar, Zoltan
1985 The FrankfurtSchool: The Critical Theoriesof Max Horkheimerand Theodor W.
Adorno.New York:Schocken Books.

Origin Myths in the Social Sciences
139
Therbor, Goran
"FrankfurtMarxism:A critique,"New Left Review September-October:65-96.
1970
Turkle, Sherry
1992 Psychoanalytic Politics: Freud's French Revolution.New York: Guilford Press.
van den Berg, Axel
"Criticaltheory:Is there still hope,"AmericanJournal of Sociology, 86(3): 449-478.
1980
Westkott, Marcia
The Feminist Legacy of Karen Homey. New Haven: Yale University Press.
1986
Whitebook, Joel
1995 Perversion and Utopia: A Study in Psychoanalysisand Critical Theory.Cambridge:
MIT Press.
Wiggershaus,Rolf
The FrankfurtSchool: Its History, Theories,and Political Significance. Cambridge:
1994
The MIT Press.
Wolin, Richard
The Termsof CulturalCriticism:TheFrankfurtSchool, Existentialism,Poststructural1992
ism. New York: ColumbiaUniversityPress.


Origin Myths in The Social Science Fromm

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Origin Myths in The Social Science Fromm

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Origin Myths in the Social Sciences: Fromm, the Frankfurt School and the Emergence of

This content downloaded from 130.113.111.210 on Sun, 17 Nov 2013 20:58:35 PM

Origin Myths in the Social Sciences: Fromm,

Abstract:The FrankfurtSchool providesrich materialfor the sociology of knowledge since it is

This content downloaded from 130.113.111.210 on Sun, 17 Nov 2013 20:58:35 PM

110 CanadianJournalof Sociology

The FrankfurtSchool providesrich materialfor the sociology of knowledge

2. Criticaltheoryhas become a generictermthatappliesto a wide rangeof influentialscholarly

This content downloaded from 130.113.111.210 on Sun, 17 Nov 2013 20:58:35 PM

OriginMythsin the SocialSciences 111

This content downloaded from 130.113.111.210 on Sun, 17 Nov 2013 20:58:35 PM

112 CanadianJournalof Sociology

School well afterFromm(in Adorno'scase, nearlya decadeafterFromm)and

was writtenout of the history of the FrankfurtSchool just as it was carving

This content downloaded from 130.113.111.210 on Sun, 17 Nov 2013 20:58:35 PM

OriginMythsin the SocialSciences 113

This content downloaded from 130.113.111.210 on Sun, 17 Nov 2013 20:58:35 PM

114 CanadianJournalof Sociology

figures in the FrankfurtSchool thuswere farmoredependenton the economic

This content downloaded from 130.113.111.210 on Sun, 17 Nov 2013 20:58:35 PM

OriginMythsin the SocialSciences 115

11. Anotherfactoris thatFrommdecidedto reformulatehis draftmanuscripttentativelytitled The

This content downloaded from 130.113.111.210 on Sun, 17 Nov 2013 20:58:35 PM

116 CanadianJournalof Sociology

12. In a letter to Tom Bottomoredated March26th, 1974 (ErichFromm Archives, Tibingen,

This content downloaded from 130.113.111.210 on Sun, 17 Nov 2013 20:58:35 PM

Origin Myths in the Social Sciences 117

study underthe auspices of the Institutewas a majorfactorin the rift between

and flawed by unrepresentativesampling procedures (Hamilton, 1986:82-83). Hamilton

This content downloaded from 130.113.111.210 on Sun, 17 Nov 2013 20:58:35 PM

18. AlthoughFrommwas tenuredanddeeply involvedin the earlyworkof the FrankfurtSchool,

This content downloaded from 130.113.111.210 on Sun, 17 Nov 2013 20:58:35 PM

Origin Myths in the Social Sciences 119

For Adorno,Fromm's revision of Freudiantheoryinevitablyled away from

This content downloaded from 130.113.111.210 on Sun, 17 Nov 2013 20:58:35 PM

This content downloaded from 130.113.111.210 on Sun, 17 Nov 2013 20:58:35 PM

OriginMythsin the SocialSciences 121

This content downloaded from 130.113.111.210 on Sun, 17 Nov 2013 20:58:35 PM

This content downloaded from 130.113.111.210 on Sun, 17 Nov 2013 20:58:35 PM

OriginMythsin the SocialSciences 123

This content downloaded from 130.113.111.210 on Sun, 17 Nov 2013 20:58:35 PM

This content downloaded from 130.113.111.210 on Sun, 17 Nov 2013 20:58:35 PM

OriginMythsin the SocialSciences 125

30. Neither Therborn,the AlthusserianMarxistcritic of the FrankfurtSchool, or critical theory's

This content downloaded from 130.113.111.210 on Sun, 17 Nov 2013 20:58:35 PM

126 CanadianJournalof Sociology

of FrankfurtSchool scholarsin the academy.My pointhereis not thatLukacs'philosophical

This content downloaded from 130.113.111.210 on Sun, 17 Nov 2013 20:58:35 PM

OriginMythsin the SocialSciences 127

This content downloaded from 130.113.111.210 on Sun, 17 Nov 2013 20:58:35 PM

128 CanadianJournalof Sociology

intellectuals stranded in America in the 1930s and 1940s, dependent on

33. Wiggershausargues that Horkheimer'sprobablegoal was to keep Fromm associated with

This content downloaded from 130.113.111.210 on Sun, 17 Nov 2013 20:58:35 PM

Origin Myths in the Social Sciences 129

could not help but notice thatFreudianswere growing in influence in America

1995c: 762-765), and Heinz Hartmann(Horkheimer1995d:330-332). In Horkheimer'sletter

This content downloaded from 130.113.111.210 on Sun, 17 Nov 2013 20:58:35 PM

130 CanadianJournalof Sociology

Schoelfeld suggests that "Fromm'scriticisms of one of the cornerstonesof

Escapefrom Freedomis a "subjective"book, writtenin a "heavy,tedious

This content downloaded from 130.113.111.210 on Sun, 17 Nov 2013 20:58:35 PM

OriginMythsin the SocialSciences 131